“Mini Me, stop humping the laser. Maybe you and the laser should go get a freakin room.”

The West’s showdown with Iran seems to be intensifying with each passing day.

Capitol police have dropped all charges and apologized after kicking out two t-shirt-wearing State of the Union attendees last night.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was wearing a t-shirt that said, “2245 Dead. How many more?”; Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom.” Both were asked to leave. Sheehan was handcuffed and arrested after, according to some reports, she refused to leave. (She denies this.) Young left voluntarily, according to all the reports I’ve seen, though she had an argument with the police in the hallway after leaving the gallery.

The officers “were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,” Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley said of the Sheehan incident. “…[W]earing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested.”

Personally, I have no problem with the charges being dropped, but I’m somewhat disappointed in the apologies, because now that everybody knows it’s apparently okay to wear t-shirts to the State of the Union, I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, leading to a general decline in decorum. I’m inclined to agree with blogger Cam Edwards, who wrote before the police apologized:

Who the heck wears a t-shirt to the State of the Union address anyway? Isn’t there some sort of dress code? … [T]he State of the Union address was neither the time nor the place to do what [the shirt-wearers] did. Throw the t-shirt in your purse, and put it on after the speech is over and you’re outside mingling with the protestors.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

I don’t know about you, but I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my State of the Unions dignified. (Hat tip: Homer Simpson.) I’d rather not see the very serious and important event* of the president’s annual address to Congress devolve into a reality TV show where people compete for the cameras’ attention with ever more gaudy, controversial and/or inappropriate t-shirts.

“But this is America!” you protest. “Don’t we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?” Yes — but there are lots of good opportunities to do that, and even get media attention for it, as Cindy Sheehan has proven. You needn’t, and you shouldn’t, violate the basic rules of etiquette that govern events like the State of the Union. It’s unseemly, undignified, and unnecessary to get your point across.

“But what about the First Amendment?” you cry. Well, on its face, a content-neutral dress code for the State of the Union address — requiring business attire and/or barring shirts with printed messages on them — seems like a classic time, place and manner restriction, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. As Al Maviva says:

I’ll defend to the death your right to grow your white boy dreadlocks and march around in sloganed T-shirts and with signs on the Capitol steps, but your right to do that ends at the Capitol’s front door. Or the Supreme Court’s front door, for that matter. As much as I’d like to see Fred Phelps, Ralph Neas and Ralph Reed in a screaming and bloody Steel Cage Death Match (comple[te] with folding chairs and strippers) on the floor of the House during a SOTU, it’s not appropriate, and giving people the right to stage political theater would invite further disorder into the shambles of a legislative process we now have.

Heh.

I’m not certain whether Ms. Hanley’s statement that “wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery” is based on a court interpretation of the First Amendment or merely a policy decision by the Capitol police. If it’s the former, I’m predisposed to disagree with the ruling, but I’d have to read it to be sure; I certainly have an open mind on the issue, and perhaps I’m forgetting some key principle from Professor Garnett’s class that would change my opinion. If it’s the latter, a mere policy, then I for one would support a change of policy.

I’ll freely admit, however, that the Republic will not crumble to its foundations if my policy preference is not followed. It would be nice to see similar honesty coming from the other side, where phrases like “police state” and “Gestapo” are predictably, but reprehensibly, being thrown around. Riiight… the Capitol police ejected two people for wearing t-shirts — one pro-war and one anti-war — and therefore we’re living in a police state run by fascist Nazi pigs. Jeez.

“I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go?” Cindy Sheehan asks. To which I would respond: your son’s death is indeed a tragedy, and you have my sincerest condolences for that. But as for America, it’s still here, as strong as ever, thanks in no small measure to the sacrifices of heroes like your son. And as for your First Amendment rights… you still have them, and are exercising them quite freely, so far as I can tell. For which I commend you, by the way, even though I disagree with practically everything you say. Were your free-speech rights actually threatened, I would defend them with every fibre of my being, you crazy moonbat. But time, place and manner restrictions, properly implemented and properly enforced, are not a legitimate threat to those rights.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s a reason I say “properly implemented and properly enforced.” I often agree with those who complain that protesters’ activities are unduly restricted by overzealous officials who confine them to “protest zones” miles away from the cameras and dignitaries. There is a real need for security restrictions, of course, but that legitimate justification is often used as an excuse to completely isolate protesters from the events they are protesting, a perversion of the First Amendment carried out under the guise of “time, place and manner.” I would like to see the courts step in and force the authorities to be more reasonable about such things.

But I draw the line at protesting inside the Capitol during a presidential address. I mean, c’mon. I realize it’s the “People’s House,” but there is, as Cam Edwards said, a time and a place to wear t-shirts with political slogans, and the State of the Union address is not it. I sincerely hope social opprobrium will step in where the law apparently fears to tread, and prevent t-shirt-wearing protesters from ruining the decorum of the State of the Union in future years.

*No comments from the peanut gallery, please, on the irony of me describing the State of the Union as a “very serious and important event” after playing a State of the Union drinking game last night. :)

P.S. One other thing. There’s been a good deal of debate over whether, even if the police had the right to ask Sheehan to leave, they overreacted by actually arresting and handcuffing her. The answer, in my view, depends on which account of Sheehan’s behavior is correct: Sheehan’s, or the police’s. Sheehan says she was “roughly” escorted out of the gallery, immediately after taking off her jacket, without being given an opportunity to leave voluntarily, let alone cover up her shirt. Capitol Police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider says, according to an AP paraphrase, that the officer(s) “warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond,” and then she was arrested.

If Sheehan is telling the truth, then the police’s actions were obviously unjustifiable; clearly, they should have given her the opportunity to “cover up” or leave voluntarily. If, however, the police’s account is correct, that’s a whole different matter. If a police officer asks you to do something and you don’t comply, of course you’re going to be arrested, and most likely handcuffed. That’s neither surprising nor outrageous. Now, the police say in retrospect that the officer didn’t have the right to ask her what he asked her, so apparently his whole action was unjustified no matter what. But the idea that it’s somehow doubly outrageous because they arrested her, rather than merely “escorting her out,” is only accurate if her account is correct, i.e., if she wasn’t being obstinate and non-compliant.

As far as I’m concerned, neither the police nor Cindy Sheehan (nor the AP, for that matter) are necessarily entitled to a presumption of verity on matters such as this, so I really don’t know who to believe. I’d love to hear from any eyewitnesses who saw what actually happened. I wonder if we will.

UPDATE: Here’s a photo, and analysis thereof, suggesting that Sheehan’s account may not be precisely accurate:

Yep, there’s her being “roughly hauled out of her seat” and “shov[ed] up the stairs” with “[her] hands behind [her] back,” with enough force to leave “bruises” and “spasms.” Except that, as you can see, the man leading her up the stairs has one hand on her upper arm. If you’ll notice closely, his thumb is not even wrapped around the front side of Saint Cindy’s arm, which it would have to be if he were applying any grip pressure at all. Oh yeah, and the only arm we can see? It’s in front of her. The other one’s holding her jacket. Also in front of her.

Of course, a photo only captures a single moment in time, so it’s possible Sheehan’s treatment was “rougher” before or after the photo was taken. It’s also possible she is exaggerating or fabricating portions of her story in order to make herself more of a martyr. Neither that, nor police overzealousness, are by any means inconceivable, IMHO.

Make that 1-7 in the Big East, with the seven losses by a combined 23 points. (That’s an average of just over three points per game.)

West Virginia 71, Notre Dame 70. Notre Dame’s 11-game winning streak over West Virginia ends, and the Mountaineers’ extend their Big East-leading conference record to 7-0.

The Notre Dame men’s basketball team, whose 1-6 conference record includes two losses in double-overtime and the other four by an average of four points, will try to dethrone Big East leader West Virginia, currently the conference’s only undefeated team at 6-0, tonight in Morgantown.

A win over the mighty Mountaineers could be just what Notre Dame needs to begin a colossal comeback and tranform themselves from “hard-luck team of the season” into a legitimate contender. Although, far from contending for an NCAA or even NIT bid at this point, the Fighting Irish are just trying to qualify for the Big East tournament. Only the top 12 finishers in the 16-team conference go to New York, and the Irish are presently in 14th place.

The ND women’s team, for its part, won yesterday, 67-55 over Syracuse. The Irish ladies are 10th in the Big East. (Syracuse is 14th.) Notre Dame hosts last-place Providence on Saturday at 1:00 PM at the Joyce Center.

Despite losing to the Longhorns in the Rose Bowl nearly a month ago, the Trojans have come back to beat out the Longhorns (and the Irish) in this year’s recruiting game, according to ESPN and Sports Illustrated. Recruits began sending in their letters of intent today, and USC is ranked as having the #2 recruiting class in the nation, behind #1 Florida. Texas comes in at #3, followed by Georgia and Notre Dame to round out the top 5. Although these rankings could theoretically shift , since prospects have until April 1 to sign their letters of intent, with many signing today the chances of major shifts are unlikely.

Of course, only time will tell whether that supposedly star-studded class of freshmen each team gets will live up to their reputations.

Guestblogger: David Kreutz

Guestblogger: dcl

A back-burner issue around here at BrendanLoy.com has been a migration to WordPress. In the process of the migration, or in its immediate aftermath, there is the possibility of redesigning the site. In the interest of moving this project forward a little, I would like to ask the BrendanLoy.com reader base some fairly basic questions about the direction of the project.

What do you think works on BrendanLoy.com, and what does not work? What features on the sidebar do you use or read — and which features might be more useful on their own pages? What kind of features would you like to see on a future site?

If you choose to respond, by no means do you need to answer all the questions. Also, answers from the very broad “I don’t like blue” to the extremely narrow “I want to be able to subscribe to RSS feeds for comments on individual posts” are both valuable in figuring out how to make BrendanLoy.com more useful and convenient for regular visitors and occasional visitors alike.

So, let us know what you think, and this project might be completed sometime before Brendan and Becky’s fifth wedding anniversary…

Guestblogger: Josh Rubin

Yesterday, Superbowl-bound and soon-to-retire Jerome Bettis was given the key to the city of Detroit. Since Bettis grew up in Detroit, the city decided to honor its native son.

Normally, this would be cool. But who was the last person Detroit gave the key to the city to? Saddam Hussein in 1980. Said Bettis: “I think they canceled his key. They changed the locks on that one.”